to see an electronic copy of this week's Ariel - Noticeboard for former ...
to see an electronic copy of this week's Ariel - Noticeboard for former ...
to see an electronic copy of this week's Ariel - Noticeboard for former ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
16 2 SALARIES AND EXPENSES<br />
a 00·00·08 30·06·09<br />
a<br />
Room 2425, White City<br />
201 Wood L<strong>an</strong>e, London W12 7TS<br />
020 8008 4228<br />
Edi<strong>to</strong>r<br />
Andrew Harvey 02-84222<br />
Deputy edi<strong>to</strong>rs<br />
Sally Hillier 02-26877<br />
Cathy Loughr<strong>an</strong> 02-27360<br />
Features edi<strong>to</strong>r<br />
Clare Bolt 02-27445<br />
Reporters<br />
Carla Parks 02-27630<br />
Laura Scarrott 02-84224<br />
Peggy Walker 01-43940<br />
Production edi<strong>to</strong>r<br />
Claire Barrett 02-27368<br />
Art edi<strong>to</strong>r<br />
Ken Sinyard 02-84229<br />
<strong>Ariel</strong> online<br />
Andy Walker (edi<strong>to</strong>r) 02-84227<br />
Alex Goodey 02-27410<br />
Business co-ordina<strong>to</strong>r<br />
Silv<strong>an</strong>a Rom<strong>an</strong>a 02-84228<br />
<strong>Ariel</strong> mail<br />
claire.barrett@bbc.co.uk<br />
<strong>Ariel</strong> online expore.gateway.bbc.uk/ariel<br />
Guest contribu<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>this</strong> week<br />
ANDREW GRAYSTONE on <strong>an</strong><br />
opportunity <strong>to</strong> turn religious tv in<strong>to</strong><br />
d<strong>an</strong>gerous viewing. Page 10<br />
ROOPA SUCHAK enjoys the glitz, but<br />
not the lack <strong>of</strong> sleep at the marathon<br />
Bollywood Oscars. Page 14<br />
BBC Jobs 0370 333 1330<br />
Jobs textphone 028 9032 8478<br />
BBC Jobs John Clarke 02-27143<br />
Room 2120, White City, London W12 7TS<br />
Advertise in <strong>Ariel</strong><br />
Ten Alps Publishing 020 7878 2314<br />
www.bbcarielads.com<br />
Printing<br />
Garnett Dickinson Group<br />
Rotherham 01709 768000<br />
Subscribe <strong>to</strong> <strong>Ariel</strong><br />
Six months: £26, £36, £40<br />
Twelve months: £50, £60, £68<br />
(prices <strong>for</strong> UK, Europe, rest <strong>of</strong> world<br />
respectively)<br />
Cheques <strong>to</strong>: Garnett Dickinson Print,<br />
Brookfields Way, M<strong>an</strong>vers,<br />
Wath Upon Dearne, Rotherham S63 5DL<br />
Tel 01709 768199<br />
INFORMATION IN AN EMERGENCY<br />
Telephone 0800 0688 159<br />
Ceefax Page 159 www.bbc.co.uk/159<br />
<strong>Ariel</strong> is produced by Internal<br />
Communcations <strong>for</strong> people at the BBC<br />
PLEASE RECYCLE YOUR COPY OF ARIEL<br />
> ARIEL ONLINE: BBC NEWS AS IT HAPPENS – EXPLORE.GATEWAY.BBC.CO.UK/ARIEL<<br />
Not so much the exes,<br />
more the take home pay<br />
THE BBC FOUND ITSELF SPEARED on the point <strong>of</strong><br />
the media’s knives last week <strong>an</strong>d shared some <strong>of</strong><br />
the discom<strong>for</strong>t that members <strong>of</strong> parliament have<br />
endured recently. Disclosure just isn’t the cle<strong>an</strong><br />
process that Mark Thompson <strong>an</strong>d his advisors might have<br />
liked. You c<strong>an</strong> argue that the expenses claims are not<br />
especially extravag<strong>an</strong>t <strong>for</strong> a big media org<strong>an</strong>isation where<br />
a certain level <strong>of</strong> schmoozing <strong>of</strong> stars, agents <strong>an</strong>d indeed<br />
MPs is part <strong>of</strong> the process <strong>of</strong> good business. But just as<br />
moats, duck houses <strong>an</strong>d packets <strong>of</strong> biscuits were glorious<br />
gifts <strong>to</strong> press <strong>an</strong>d broadcasters, so J<strong>an</strong>a Bennett’s s<strong>to</strong>len<br />
h<strong>an</strong>dbag, the rescue <strong>of</strong> Mark Thompson’s family on holiday<br />
<strong>an</strong>d his chauffeur’s parking costs were among the colourful<br />
examples eagerly seized on by the print, broadcast <strong>an</strong>d<br />
online communities <strong>to</strong> embarrass the BBC. It was a pretty<br />
How did you judge the reaction <strong>to</strong> the<br />
Q publication <strong>of</strong> the salary <strong>an</strong>d expenses<br />
details?<br />
I think we got on the front foot. We<br />
A decided <strong>to</strong> start living with <strong>this</strong> new<br />
philosophy about being open about the<br />
expenses we disclosed. Inevitably there was a<br />
day <strong>of</strong> noise in the press but it’s what the BBC<br />
should be doing.<br />
Do you think in the light <strong>of</strong> the disclosures<br />
Q the level <strong>of</strong> expenses will come down?<br />
AThe level <strong>of</strong> expenses has been coming<br />
down over a number <strong>of</strong> years <strong>an</strong>d is<br />
already at quite a low level. We have <strong>to</strong> run the<br />
BBC effectively, we should be out there making<br />
the case <strong>for</strong> the BBC <strong>an</strong>d making sure we get<br />
the best talent <strong>an</strong>d although I think we should<br />
bear down on expenses where we c<strong>an</strong> – the<br />
right level <strong>for</strong> the BBC is not zero. Nothing I’ve<br />
read in the papers has made me think we have<br />
a problem. I don’t think <strong>an</strong>yone has been able<br />
<strong>to</strong> st<strong>an</strong>d <strong>this</strong> up as a sc<strong>an</strong>dal.<br />
Do people earning such big salaries need<br />
Q <strong>to</strong> claim <strong>for</strong> so m<strong>an</strong>y little things like a<br />
c<strong>of</strong>fee <strong>an</strong>d s<strong>an</strong>dwich <strong>for</strong> discussions with staff.<br />
A lot <strong>of</strong> people would pay that themselves <strong>an</strong>d<br />
not claim it back?<br />
That’s a matter <strong>for</strong> individuals. If a<br />
A member <strong>of</strong> staff or a m<strong>an</strong>ager takes<br />
someone, say a presenter or a journalist, out <strong>to</strong><br />
lunch <strong>an</strong>d claims <strong>for</strong> it, that m<strong>an</strong>ifestly c<strong>an</strong> be<br />
a justifiable expense. So if a £40 or £50 lunch<br />
is justifiable then cappuccinos <strong>for</strong> two in<br />
Starbucks are also justifiable. It’s a matter <strong>for</strong><br />
individuals if they w<strong>an</strong>t <strong>to</strong> claim everything<br />
or not.<br />
Are you still saying that it’s necessary <strong>to</strong><br />
Q pay such high salaries <strong>to</strong> attract decent<br />
m<strong>an</strong>agers?<br />
A<br />
I think most people who have friends or<br />
family in the rest <strong>of</strong> the media will know<br />
that these salaries in terms <strong>of</strong> UK media are<br />
not in <strong>an</strong>y way exceptional. We pay less th<strong>an</strong><br />
the market. We w<strong>an</strong>t <strong>to</strong> be competitive enough<br />
that people will consider joining us <strong>an</strong>d every<br />
time we do one <strong>of</strong> these appointments we lose<br />
about half the c<strong>an</strong>didates you might w<strong>an</strong>t <strong>to</strong><br />
attract because <strong>of</strong> the remuneration – <strong>an</strong>d it’s<br />
getting harder because <strong>to</strong>p pay outside the<br />
BBC has been growing at such a rate. These<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> pay c<strong>an</strong> look high but in the real<br />
world, if you restricted the pay you would<br />
restrict the kind <strong>of</strong> people you could get <strong>to</strong><br />
work <strong>for</strong> the BBC.<br />
Q<br />
A<br />
predictable uproar <strong>an</strong>d will soon fade from the headlines<br />
but there’s no doubt that public disclosure will have a<br />
longer lasting impact. You c<strong>an</strong>’t imagine that all the lunches<br />
<strong>an</strong>d celebrations <strong>an</strong>d mutual hospitality will continue at<br />
quite the same levels. That’s not <strong>to</strong> say they were wrong<br />
but a lot <strong>of</strong> people we’ve talked <strong>to</strong> are amazed that highly<br />
paid executives still put in claims <strong>for</strong> the kind <strong>of</strong> everyday<br />
c<strong>of</strong>fee <strong>an</strong>d chat items they would never dream <strong>of</strong> claiming<br />
back. The levels <strong>of</strong> executive pay have the potential <strong>to</strong><br />
cause the BBC problems externally <strong>an</strong>d internally where<br />
the pay scale has been met with some incredulity. It doesn’t<br />
help the argument that the licence fee should be reserved<br />
exclusively <strong>for</strong> the BBC when it c<strong>an</strong> pay its m<strong>an</strong>agers so<br />
h<strong>an</strong>dsomely. It was against <strong>this</strong> background that <strong>Ariel</strong> asked<br />
Mark Thompson <strong>for</strong> his response…<br />
‘The salaries are not exceptional’<br />
Q&A<br />
ARIEL IN CONVERSATION<br />
WITH MARK THOMPSON<br />
There must also be <strong>an</strong> argument that there<br />
are a lot <strong>of</strong> people within the org<strong>an</strong>isation<br />
who could be brought through <strong>an</strong>d promoted?<br />
I’m const<strong>an</strong>tly being <strong>to</strong>ld there is a<br />
d<strong>an</strong>ger <strong>of</strong> a talent drain from the BBC. We<br />
know that key talent, especially in areas like<br />
entertainment, are const<strong>an</strong>tly in d<strong>an</strong>ger <strong>of</strong><br />
being poached by the rest <strong>of</strong> the market – <strong>an</strong>d<br />
even with internal c<strong>an</strong>didates, the best <strong>an</strong>d<br />
the brightest are comparing what they could<br />
earn inside <strong>an</strong>d outside the BBC. Nobody is<br />
making a decision about working <strong>for</strong> the BBC<br />
because <strong>this</strong> is where the big bucks are.<br />
In the current climate, would it be appropriate<br />
Q <strong>for</strong> the senior community <strong>to</strong> take a pay cut?<br />
AEveryone around the org<strong>an</strong>isation on<br />
£60k or more is having a pay freeze. In<br />
real terms senior m<strong>an</strong>ager pay will go down<br />
<strong>this</strong> year <strong>an</strong>d we’ll look very hard at whether<br />
senior m<strong>an</strong>agers should be part <strong>of</strong> a pay<br />
review next year. I don’t think we would get<br />
the best people <strong>to</strong> do these import<strong>an</strong>t creative<br />
<strong>an</strong>d leadership roles if we arbitrarily reduced<br />
pay <strong>an</strong>d pretended that we lived in a world<br />
without a labour market <strong>for</strong> <strong>to</strong>p pay. The<br />
d<strong>an</strong>ger is you would end up with a BBC that is<br />
quite inward looking, that c<strong>an</strong>’t get people in<br />
from outside <strong>an</strong>d there<strong>for</strong>e relies on a smaller<br />
talent pool <strong>an</strong>d you would end up with a BBC<br />
that was no longer a world class broadcaster.<br />
Are you concerned that if the public<br />
Q thinks salaries are <strong>to</strong>o high you could lose<br />
goodwill at a crucial time <strong>for</strong> the licence fee?<br />
The tightrope the BBC has <strong>to</strong> walk is<br />
A<br />
between the talented people we need <strong>to</strong><br />
make <strong>this</strong> a world class broadcaster, alongside<br />
legitimate public concern about what we pay –<br />
<strong>an</strong>d you end up with a compromise where you<br />
pay less th<strong>an</strong> the market in m<strong>an</strong>y areas <strong>an</strong>d<br />
more th<strong>an</strong> the public, if taken in isolation,<br />
would w<strong>an</strong>t. But if you ask the public if the<br />
BBC should have the best people running its<br />
journalism or its operations they’d say yes.<br />
Q<br />
The government <strong>see</strong>ms convinced that<br />
money must be found <strong>to</strong> support <strong>an</strong><br />
alternative regional tv news <strong>an</strong>d it thinks taking<br />
some from the licence fee is best<br />
We don’t believe the case has been made<br />
A<br />
that you need cash <strong>for</strong> the preservation <strong>of</strong><br />
regional news. Even if you accept that point,<br />
there are a number <strong>of</strong> possible sources – <strong>for</strong><br />
inst<strong>an</strong>ce spectrum tax – that the BBC <strong>an</strong>d<br />
other broadcasters are being expected <strong>to</strong> pay<br />
<strong>for</strong> digital television after 2014. That money<br />
could be used <strong>to</strong> create a fund <strong>to</strong> support <strong>an</strong><br />
alternative source <strong>of</strong> regional news. I believe<br />
that a division <strong>of</strong> the licence fee, which at the<br />
outset c<strong>an</strong> sound very innocent <strong>an</strong>d public<br />
spirited, is a d<strong>an</strong>gerous path <strong>to</strong> take.<br />
Do you think a collision with the<br />
Q government is inevitable<br />
It is not something I or the BBC Trust<br />
A<br />
or the executive are <strong>see</strong>king. There is so<br />
much in the Digital Britain report we c<strong>an</strong><br />
support. However we will continue <strong>to</strong> make<br />
the argument about why we think <strong>to</strong>p slicing<br />
is not in the interests <strong>of</strong> the BBC <strong>an</strong>d is not<br />
in the best interest <strong>of</strong> the public <strong>an</strong>d is not<br />
something the public will support – <strong>an</strong>d that’s<br />
our case <strong>an</strong>d we will continue <strong>to</strong> make it. It<br />
will be interesting <strong>to</strong> <strong>see</strong> how that develops<br />
over the summer.